ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
Cr. Bail Appln.No. S- 421 of 2024.
Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge.
1.For orders on office objection as flag A.
2.For hearing of bail application
28.8.2024.
Mr.Zeb Hussain Pathan, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.
======
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO-J.:- Through this bail application, applicant Qadeer @Abdul Qadeer seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.64 of 2024 of P.S Karampur for the offence under Sections 324, 353, 148, 149 PPC after the trial Court rejected his bail plea vide order dated 05.7.2024.
2. The prosecution case against the present applicant is that on 13.6.2024, a police party headed by A.S.I. Muhammad Usman Bajkani of P.S Karampur, while on patrol duty, received a spy informed about the presence of three accused standing with the criminal intent of committing dacoitynear DrShahal Khan Bijarani curve link road leading from Jamal to Ghouspuron which they rushed to pointed place and on seeing them in police uniform accused started firing upon them which was retaliated in self-defence, and the encounter lasted for ten minutes. During the course of the encounter, one of the accused raised screams, having received firearm injuryat the hands of his companions,and when firing was stopped,one of the accused was found injured at the spot and was taken into custody alongwith his unlicensed gun. PC Gulsher Ahmed and P.C.Gulzar Ahmed were associated as mashirs, and then, on a query, the accused apprehended disclosed his name as Javed S/O MalharBhayo,who was taken to hospital and after providing treatment to the injured accused, the case was registered on behalf of State. Subsequently,on the basis of statements of P.Ws recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, thepresent applicant was implicated and joined as the accused in the present case. During the investigation, the applicant was arrested and sent up to face trial, where a post-arrest bail application moved on his behalf was declined by the learned trial Court vide order 05.7.2024, giving rise to the filing of the instant application before this Court.
3. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused has not been nominated in the F.I.R., but later on, he was implicated in the case on the basis of statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the prosecution witnesses on the very same day; that allegedly one accused namely co-accused JavedBhayo having received firearm injury was arrested at the spot but he did not name the present applicant; that no specific role is attributed to the present applicant as there is a general allegation against all the three accused who allegedly caused ineffective firing upon police party while they were on official duty; that allegedly three accused duly armed with a gun and K.Ks committed firing upon police party, and encounter lasted for ten minutes but yet none from police party received a single scratch and nor any bullet was hit to their govt vehicle, and despite the police party having prior spy information, the prosecution failed to associate private mashirswith attesting the occurrence and arrest. On all these scores, learned counsel submits that the prosecution case against the present applicant calls for further enquiry, and he is entitled to the grant of bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following reported cases:
1. Ali Sher Leghari& another v.The State (2023 P.Cr.L.J 1461).
2. Fahad & others v. The State (2024 P.L.J Law Note Criminal 48)
3. Salman Zahid v.The State4 (2024 P.L.J (SC) 25).
4. Sheroo and others v. The State (2012 YLR 1383).
5. Habib alias Ghaffar Abba v. The State (2016 P.Crl.L.J 683).
6. Abid Hussain alias Agho v.The State (2021 Y.L.R. Note 28).
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G appearing for the State submits that no doubt the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., but he was implicated in the statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C of P.Ws on the very same day, and he was amongst three accused who duly armed with a gun and K.Ks deterred the police party from the discharge of their official duty and caused straight firing upon them with the intention to kill. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to bail and prays for the dismissal of their bail plea.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.
6. Admittedly, the present applicant was not nominated in the F.I.R. Later on, he was implicated in the case on the basis of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.s of prosecution witnesses who revealed that he had suspicionof his involvement in the above crime. No specific role is attributed to the present applicant as there is a general allegation against all the accused that they were armed with guns and K.Ks (Kalashnikovs) have been collectively engaged in ineffective firing at the police party. It is also pertinent to note that although the encounter between the accused and the police party lasted for ten minutes, not a single scratch was received by the police party, nor did any bullet hit the vehicle, which also makes the case of prosecution one of further enquiry. Although one of the accused,JavedBhayo, alongwith his gun,was arrested at the spot in injured conditionand allegedly sustained injuries at the hands of his companions, he did notinvolve the present applicant with the commission of an offence.Besides, nothing has been recovered from the present applicant to connect him with the commission of crime. The reliance can be placed in the case of Jamaluddin v. The State (2012 SCMR 573.
7. In view of the above circumstances, at this stage, the prosecution case against the present applicant calls for further enquiry; therefore, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/= and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. These are the reasons for my short order dated 28.8.2024.
8. Needless to say, observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either side on the conclusion of the trial.
JUDGE
shabir